If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If it falls under the old Obscenity laws obscene is defined as leading to deprave or corrupt, the extreme pornography law (one of the worst written laws in history) where it has to be deemed grossly offensive or the actual law covering lolicon which i think uses similar wording about being grossly offensive or disgusting or otherwise obscene.

However it also states that the work is intended as pornography defined as being "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal".

A cartoon schoolgirl over a train doesn't get covered by any of that. Even if it was an edge case, it's as decided by a jury of your peers. Who would not be mental enough to send you to jail for that thing.

While we do have a censorship problem due to the extreme pornography laws of new labour, which are bonkers, they have never actually been enforced due to the trial by jury requirement.

On another note; myself and my girlfriend have no issues with booth babes. If someone wants to get paid to dress up as someone at a convention (and use their body as a marketing tool), all the more power to them. Their body, their life, they can do what they want.

It's sections 62-68 of The Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which was enacted after the laws surrounding "extreme" pornography. Whether it's been held up in court, or it relies on a jury of your peers, or not, is irrelevant. I don't trust my peers not to send me down for looking at that image (we're talking about the same people that have chased paediatricians out of towns), and I don't want to take the risk any more than strictly necessary.

It's sections 62-68 of The Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which was enacted after the laws surrounding "extreme" pornography. Whether it's been held up in court, or it relies on a jury of your peers, or not, is irrelevant. I don't trust my peers not to send me down for looking at that image (we're talking about the same people that have chased paediatricians out of towns), and I don't want to take the risk any more than strictly necessary.

That was the act I was referencing when I said the one that covers lolicon. It still defines pornography as: "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal". Also of the same act it has to fall into this definition:

(6)

An image falls within this subsection if it—

(a)

is an image which focuses solely or principally on a child's genitals or anal region, or

(b)

portrays any of the acts mentioned in subsection (7).

(7)

Those acts are—

(a)

the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;

(b)

an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;

(c)

an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person's body or with anything else;

(d)

an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person's body or with anything else;

(e)

the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);

(f)

the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.

The referenced image clearly isn't pornography in that sense at all. The CPS would never take it near a court and a jury would never convict. In the same way a picture of your children in swimming suits would never count either, no matter what the tabloids would say.

I feel a need to make it clear that the laws in the UK while stupid in some regards aren't as bad as being made out.

It's sections 62-68 of The Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which was enacted after the laws surrounding "extreme" pornography. Whether it's been held up in court, or it relies on a jury of your peers, or not, is irrelevant. I don't trust my peers not to send me down for looking at that image (we're talking about the same people that have chased paediatricians out of towns), and I don't want to take the risk any more than strictly necessary.

Better not go anywhere near a Mothercare then. They have pictures of naked children EVERYWHERE.

On another note; myself and my girlfriend have no issues with booth babes. If someone wants to get paid to dress up as someone at a convention (and use their body as a marketing tool), all the more power to them. Their body, their life, they can do what they want.

While true at the individual level all our actions as individuals have a social component. Totally different but the same kind of point, I am perfectly free to express my opinion that everyone is a cunt and say so to every stranger I meet. That is my right. However I'll have no friends.

It's perfectly fine to dress how you want and to make money doing anything that isn't illegal. But if that has a social component that means you are indirectly contributing to "opression" "patriarchy" "take your pick", then you need to be aware of that when picking your individual actions. Then on top of that collectives of people need to be aware of how to balance those individual rights against broader social contexts. So the collective group of gamers or more likely game devs/game companies who hire these booth babes need to think hard about it. Not the women themselves necessarily.

While true at the individual level all our actions as individuals have a social component. Totally different but the same kind of point, I am perfectly free to express my opinion that everyone is a cunt and say so to every stranger I meet. That is my right. However I'll have no friends.

Sure you will. Unfortunately, they'll all be cunts.

Originally Posted by Zephro

It's perfectly fine to dress how you want and to make money doing anything that isn't illegal. But if that has a social component that means you are indirectly contributing to "opression" "patriarchy" "take your pick", then you need to be aware of that when picking your individual actions. Then on top of that collectives of people need to be aware of how to balance those individual rights against broader social contexts. So the collective group of gamers or more likely game devs/game companies who hire these booth babes need to think hard about it. Not the women themselves necessarily.

People do a lot of things in order to sleep indoors and put food on the table. That doesn't mean those things aren't demeaning or exploitative. This reminds me of the moral watchdogs who are quick to persecute sex workers but not the economic system that drives young women into being sex workers.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

While true at the individual level all our actions as individuals have a social component. Totally different but the same kind of point, I am perfectly free to express my opinion that everyone is a cunt and say so to every stranger I meet. That is my right. However I'll have no friends.

It's perfectly fine to dress how you want and to make money doing anything that isn't illegal. But if that has a social component that means you are indirectly contributing to "opression" "patriarchy" "take your pick", then you need to be aware of that when picking your individual actions. Then on top of that collectives of people need to be aware of how to balance those individual rights against broader social contexts. So the collective group of gamers or more likely game devs/game companies who hire these booth babes need to think hard about it. Not the women themselves necessarily.

I'm not going to lie but all this rampant talk of feminism and MRA-ness in the last year or so has completely bewildered me (and for the most part, fustrated). I will be the first to admit I am wholly out of my depth.

I'm not sure how choosing to be a booth babe contributes to oppression and all that malarky. I mean, surely they're the ones with the power? They can choose if they do (or don't) do it as well as negotiate the contract. If they had half-naked male models wandering around, I wouldn't care. Companies are going to primarily do what sells, which is fine, they need to make a profit .. but in order to change anything we'll have to first change the public perception on what is appealing and/or acceptable .. which will never happen with the two large gender specific groups at each others throats.

On a final note however; I personally find Feminism/Mens Rights Advocates wastes of space as both parties put one particular gender before the other (as well as enacting fucking ridiculous power struggles).

Being Egalitarian is where it's at, just treat people how you want to be treated. It's not hard, holmes.

Edit: I am in work and cannot spell, punctuate or form coherent sentences.

People do a lot of things in order to sleep indoors and put food on the table. That doesn't mean those things aren't demeaning or exploitative. This reminds me of the moral watchdogs who are quick to persecute sex workers but not the economic system that drives young women into being sex workers.

Well that's kind of what I was getting at. Fine some people may make an individual choice to be a sex worker and yknow their body whatever. But looking at the broader picture of the sex industry it seems better to override that right etc. But if you phrase it all as what an individual has a right to do to earn money then you lose most of the point.

It's probably all part of western capitalism over the last 30 years and the focus on the individual above all else that leads to it. I blame Thatcher.

On a final note however; I personally find Feminism/Mens Rights Advocates wastes of space as both parties put one particular gender before the other (as well as enacting fucking ridiculous power struggles).